Response to "Linux is not commercially ready"
This rant was originally a response to a comment posted on the Ubuntu forums. While it was posted there, this is a fairly typical comment made by people who believe all operating systems need to be simple enough for non-technical and lay people to use in order for them to have a place in the world. Below is my response to such close mindedness.
Linux is the perfect solution for the corporate office. As I've said TO DEATH, the corporate office doesn't need a system that's "newbie friendly". In fact, quite the opposite. The corporate office has systems administrators and helpdesk staff to do the system config side of things. Average users should be doing nothing more than logging in to their PCs of a morning, checking emails, writing documents and spreadsheets, and using their supplied software.
MacOSX and Windows are often touted as superior operating systems because of their "ease of use". This might be true for the home users, but as ArsTechnica points out, the world needs to distinguish the difference between home software and work software, and realise that's what is "easy" for home users is not necessarily "good" for business users. (In fact, it's quite the opposite, as "easy" software more often than not is unconfigurable and far too low-end for business):
The linked article is not a difficult one to understand, nor to see examples of in the real world. People fight change even at the best of times, and in the technical world there is a common misconception that what people are familiar with (and often, what they are familiar with in their homes) makes "good software" elsewhere (eg: in the workplace or corporate/commercial arena).
Back to your statement above: Linux is more than commercially ready. It's been that way for quite some time now. Linux does occasionally require a user who knows what they are doing with their system and understands things about computing in a little more detail than your average desktop user. But again, in a work environment where people are payed to be systems administrators, that is the perfect environment.
I've worked in corporate IT for quite some time now. Never have I seen a workplace where the end user was responsible for installing 3D graphics drivers, installing scanner software, configuring the network settings of their machine, etc. All of that is performed by the IT staff employed to do that job. In fact, if things are set up properly, end-users won't even have the system permission/authorization to do those tasks.
I currently help many businesses as an IT contractor, and quite a few now run Linux on the desktop (not as many who run it on the server, but that's not the scope of this thread). For those who do, it's a painless operation because they have paid support personnel (ie: me) to do the tricky stuff for them.
So my suggestion is you should refine your statement. Is Linux ready for the MacOSX/Windows using home PC owner? Well, maybe, depending on their technical skill and interest. I'd say 10% or more of home users are very much ready for Linux on the desktop from my direct experience. Certainly not the majority, but a good slug of them for sure.
And for the 90% who aren't, that's fine. These are the reasons why we have choice, and why choice is good. But it needs to be said that simply because Linux still exists at all is a sign of it's competence. Linux will die only when people stop using it.
But when it comes to businesses, especially those who have full time IT support employed, Linux on the desktop was ready 5 years ago. Why do I say that? Because that's about the time that businesses started asking me to install it on the Desktop for them. I've set up everything from thin client installs for point of sale users through to high end workstations and renderfarms for visual effects operators. Most of what I do is way beyond the comprehension of your average home user. Does that mean Linux is "not ready for commercial use"? Hell no. If it was, then high-end systems like SAP (large enterprise ERP/finance system) and PRMan (Pixar Renderman - rendering software used to make special effects in 90% of films playing in cinemas today) would also be "not ready", and thus "not in use".
"Complex" does not equal "bad". Far from it.
"People who say it can't be done are usually interrupted by those doing it".
